I'm honestly thinking that the current push for evaluating teachers is a way to break the union. I have no qualms about holding teachers accountable, but the constant changing of student evaluation (PSSA, Common Core, whatever comes next) is not doing students any favors, and it makes the teachers' jobs that much more difficult. It's extremely difficult to teach when the goal line is constantly moving. That isn't to say that the teachers shouldn't be held to rigorous standards, but the constant shifting of teaching goals is setting students, and teachers, up for failure.

It's much easier to fire teachers that don't reach some arbitrary benchmark.

You are definitely right. A lot of big cities and some states are pushing for these changes with either the implicit or explicit result being an end to unions. I have no problem with ending the tenure system of pay, so long as there is a viable system in place to evaluate teachers and pay them that way. The current ones being used or proposed don't cut it, for the most part. The push is to tie pay to scores.... yet the tests keep changing and the content keeps changing. We'll also end up having kindergartners be tested and kids taking tests in every class from math to PE and art (assuming that the school didn't have to waste all their money on test prep and still has an art teacher).

Same was said in Good Will Hunting, but yet the jerk at the bar has a point. At the end of the day, he'll have the degree. Without that stupid piece of paper, your knowledge is almost useless as far as getting your foot in the door.

I went to a pretty good suburban district and I imagine that the quality of education there hasn't wavered in the last 50 years.

Why is that? I would say:

1. The inherent ability of the students to learn.2. Their interest in learning, as instilled into them by their parents.3. Their parents taking a large interest in the educational process and making sure that the kids are progressing each year.4. Good teachers.

I don't know how you can have "good schools" without 1-3 above.Are the "bad schools" any worse than they were 50 years ago or are there just more students going to them?

Same was said in Good Will Hunting, but yet the jerk at the bar has a point. At the end of the day, he'll have the degree. Without that stupid piece of paper, your knowledge is almost useless as far as getting your foot in the door.

I know, Im in school. I personally believe I could take different routes and be sucessful but what I really want to do requires a doctorate... So here I am

I went to a pretty good suburban district and I imagine that the quality of education there hasn't wavered in the last 50 years.

Why is that? I would say:

1. The inherent ability of the students to learn.2. Their interest in learning, as instilled into them by their parents.3. Their parents taking a large interest in the educational process and making sure that the kids are progressing each year.4. Good teachers.

I don't know how you can have "good schools" without 1-3 above.Are the "bad schools" any worse than they were 50 years ago or are there just more students going to them?

what's the income level in that district, and has it been steady over that time period?

I went to a pretty good suburban district and I imagine that the quality of education there hasn't wavered in the last 50 years.

Why is that? I would say:

1. The inherent ability of the students to learn.2. Their interest in learning, as instilled into them by their parents.3. Their parents taking a large interest in the educational process and making sure that the kids are progressing each year.4. Good teachers.

I don't know how you can have "good schools" without 1-3 above.Are the "bad schools" any worse than they were 50 years ago or are there just more students going to them?

It's difficult, if not impossible to get a child interested in education if their parents are not interested in their education as well. So many people want every single teacher to be a miracle worker with every single kid. There are GREAT teachers out there that still cannot reach some kids because of circumstances beyond their control. When you have a moderately okay teacher the numbers go up, and bad teachers the numbers skyrocket. I still remember my first year teaching. I had to (by school code) give students an end of the year review of me and sit down with the principal and go through them. The number still rings in my head... 162 students. 150 with good comments. I was ecstatic about that. You can't reach every single child because you're not with them 24/7. Teachers need help from home. In fact, on your list, I would say the greatest indication of a child doing well in school fall on 2 and 3 much more than 1 and 4.

The kids in my HS that were in the remedial classes largely lived on the other side of the tracks:Low income families, single parent household, parents who hadn't gone to college, parents who didn't give a ****, etc.....it wasn't really a surprise. Now apply that to entire poor, urban areas.....and people want to blame the system and the teachers for low achievement?

columbia wrote:The kids in my HS that were in the remedial classes largely lived on the other side of the tracks:Low income families, single parent household, parents who hadn't gone to college, parents who didn't give a ****, etc.....it wasn't really a surprise. Now apply that to entire poor, urban areas.....and people want to blame the system and the teachers for low achievement?

At the same time there are far too many teachers in those areas that are just lousy teachers. Why are they there? Because it's likely the only place they could get hired. Where do the "good teachers" want to go? Where there's more money and a better district. I can pretty much guarantee that if you gave a teacher a choice between a nice suburban school district vs. a poor inner city school they'd pick the first.

columbia wrote:The kids in my HS that were in the remedial classes largely lived on the other side of the tracks:Low income families, single parent household, parents who hadn't gone to college, parents who didn't give a ****, etc.....it wasn't really a surprise. Now apply that to entire poor, urban areas.....and people want to blame the system and the teachers for low achievement?

At the same time there are far too many teachers in those areas that are just lousy teachers. Why are they there? Because it's likely the only place they could get hired. Where do the "good teachers" want to go? Where there's more money and a better district. I can pretty much guarantee that if you gave a teacher a choice between a nice suburban school district vs. a poor inner city school they'd pick the first.

around where i live, "more money" and "a better district" 2 different places. you actually make less working in better towns.

I understand that you generally make less in a more rural school than urban area school, but it's not necessarily always about how much you make, but what you have. Do you have supportive parents? Do you have the equipment to fully convey your message to your students? Do you have the ability to teach nice elective classes? Do you have a class that is 30 students or 20 students (especially important in a lab based class)? Many good teachers are driven away from where they're needed most.

count2infinity wrote:I understand that you generally make less in a more rural school than urban area school, but it's not necessarily always about how much you make, but what you have. Do you have supportive parents? Do you have the equipment to fully convey your message to your students? Do you have the ability to teach nice elective classes? Do you have a class that is 30 students or 20 students (especially important in a lab based class)? Many good teachers are driven away from where they're needed most.

Man class size is such a huge factor. The difference from even 25 to 20 kids is huge. So much more can be accomplished with a smaller class size. Equipment to fully convey a message is huge as well. I'm currently in a school that doesn't have smart boards, can't access YouTube, and still uses over head projectors with transparencies. Of course I've also seen the schools that had Smart Boards and not used them which is maddening because the kids LOVE them when they're allowed to use them and the teachers aren't fully trained in what the technology can do.

columbia wrote:The kids in my HS that were in the remedial classes largely lived on the other side of the tracks:Low income families, single parent household, parents who hadn't gone to college, parents who didn't give a ****, etc.....it wasn't really a surprise. Now apply that to entire poor, urban areas.....and people want to blame the system and the teachers for low achievement?

Really, the most important factor in that list is the parents who don't give a crap. The other stuff gets worked around if parents want to. Where I teach it is a lot of two working parents, single parents, and low income. However, the parents care and it shows. Such a huge difference from where I taught in PA, where the income and parental situation was similar, but the level of care was much lower.

count2infinity wrote:I understand that you generally make less in a more rural school than urban area school, but it's not necessarily always about how much you make, but what you have. Do you have supportive parents? Do you have the equipment to fully convey your message to your students? Do you have the ability to teach nice elective classes? Do you have a class that is 30 students or 20 students (especially important in a lab based class)? Many good teachers are driven away from where they're needed most.

Man class size is such a huge factor. The difference from even 25 to 20 kids is huge. So much more can be accomplished with a smaller class size. Equipment to fully convey a message is huge as well. I'm currently in a school that doesn't have smart boards, can't access YouTube, and still uses over head projectors with transparencies. Of course I've also seen the schools that had Smart Boards and not used them which is maddening because the kids LOVE them when they're allowed to use them and the teachers aren't fully trained in what the technology can do.

Had 18 kids last year and have 24 this year. Much harder to give the 1-1 attention now.

I went from a school like you were in to a much more tech savvy school. Smart board, doc camera, laptops, wifi.... I was like, "You mean I get to keep this suff in my room for good?" We used an old overhead projector to warm something up for a science experiment and some of the kids didn't even know what it was.